As tensions churn on the high seas, Filipinos find peace on another front

(2nd part)

“All claimants are expanding their military and law enforcement capabilities, while growing nationalism at home is empowering hardliners pushing for a tougher stance on territorial claims. In addition, claimants are pursuing divergent resolution mechanisms; Beijing insists on resolving the disputes bilaterally, while Vietnam and the Philippines are actively engaging the US and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations.”

But the issue has split ASEAN. At the East Asia Summit in Phnom Penh last month, the Philippines and summit host Cambodia butted heads over bringing the issue up at the regional gathering, with Cambodia, an ally of China, refusing to “internationalize the South China Sea from now on,” according to a foreign ministry official.

That prompted a blunt response from President Aquino, who tersely challenged that statement, saying, “For the record, this was not our understanding. The ASEAN route is not the only route for us. As a sovereign state, it is our right to defend our national interests.”

The kerfuffle mirrored an earlier breakdown at a July gathering of ASEAN foreign ministers in Cambodia, where the bloc failed to agree on a joint communiqué for the first time in its 45-year history because of the South China Sea impasse. The Philippines had wanted a communiqué to mention the confrontation between Manila and Beijing at Scarborough Shoal, but Cambodia seemed to bow to Chinese pressure to shelve the draft, saying the island disputes were bilateral issues.

“This was a spectacular failure for the regional grouping and an outcome that, on the surface, seemed not to be in any nation’s interests,” wrote Ernest Z. Bower of the Center for Strategic and International Studies in a July 20 commentary.

“Fundamentally, the chaos at the [meeting] appears to be an outcome manipulated by a China that has decided that a weak and divided ASEAN is in its national interests. Understanding that fact, and the fact that ASEAN has the capacity and commitment to overcome China’s shortsighted campaign to break its ranks, is a necessary condition for advising the policies of countries that want to advance regional structures that will promote peace, security and prosperity in the Asia Pacific.”

That’s precisely why Cuisia says ASEAN needs to adopt a code of conduct to minimize the short-term risks of a flare-up and ultimately resolve the various sovereignty claims. The bloc has formally asked China to start talks on such a code, but whether any kind of multilateral legal framework can be established - it’s been talked about for years - is highly doubtful.

“We have had diplomatic protests but we’ve not been able to resolve the issue. We’re hoping that a code of conduct will be discussed with China and agreed upon, which would then guide all the countries of the region,” Cuisia said. “We believe it is important that we have a rules-based system anchored in international law, and that this issue should be settled peacefully and diplomatically if possible. We want to ensure freedom of navigation and unimpeded, lawful commerce. Those are the same objectives of the US government.”

Indeed, both Washington and Manila see eye to eye when it comes to the foreign policy dilemma in the South China Sea (which Manila unilaterally renamed the West Philippine Sea this September, one of many names competing countries have given the waterway).

US service members brief US Army Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, during his visit to Camp Navarro in the Philippines, which has increased its military ties with the United States in the wake of the various island disputes in the South China Sea.

When Aquino visited the White House in June after the Scarborough Shoal faceoff, President Obama said the Philippines and United States would “consult closely together” as part of the pivot back to Asia,” which he said should serve as a reminder that “the United States considers itself, and is, a Pacific power.”

And in October, US Marines joined their Philippine counterparts for 10 days of joint exercises in the South China Sea. As the amphibious assault ship Bonhomme Richard — which once docked in Subic Bay — cruised through the disputed waters, the show of military might annoyed Chinese officials but reassured Southeast Asian allies such as the Philippines and Vietnam of American support.

But in a speech at the D.C.-based Heritage Foundation, Philippine Foreign Minister Albert del Rosario said that the United States could lend even more support. He lamented that the overall share of US military funding to his strategic nation has actually dropped, with Manila’s portion of funding accounting for 35 percent of the total given to East Asia this year, compared to more than 70 percent in 2006.

Del Rosario, who served as Manila’s envoy in Washington from 2001 to 2006 (and was profiled in the September 2003 issue of The Washington Diplomat), also urged the United States to lift conditions on military financing because of concerns over human rights violations and extrajudicial killings, saying his government has been addressing those concerns.

Overall, however, bilateral military ties are stronger than ever, with Washington sharing data with Manila, which in turn has given US forces greater access to its airfields and ports.

In fact, these days, both the Clark and Subic Bay bases, once the source of strife between the two nations, are thriving economic zones.

“When the US bases were there, they had 40,000 military and civilian personnel working there. Now they have 160,000,” Cuisia pointed out. “We are the fourth-largest shipbuilding industry in the world, and a lot of Taiwanese companies are located at Subic. At Clark, we have Samsung, and Yokohama will build the world’s largest tire factory there.”

Just as the Philippines has patched up its once rocky alliance with the United States, paving the way for greater economic cooperation, the government is hoping that peace on its southern front will usher in newfound prosperity.

The roots of the Muslim uprising on the southern island of Mindanao reach back to the US colonization of the Philippines in the late 19th century and escalated following Philippine independence in 1946. For decades, Muslims living in the area had complained of official discrimination against the native Moro population in housing and education, as well as an official government policy of settling Catholic Filipino emigrants in Mindanao.

The early 1970s saw the rise of the Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF), and soon after, the more conservative Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF), which broke away from the MNLF in 1978. The MILF dreamed of establishing an independent homeland governed by Islamic Sharia law — and received help from both Malaysia and Libyan strongman Muammar al-Qaddafi - though by the early 1990s, that support had pretty much dried up.

In 1997, months after the MNLF signed a peace accord with the government, talks began with the MILF aimed at resolving the conflict. But peace remained elusive until Aug. 4, 2011, when the newly elected Aquino met secretly with MILF chairman Murad Ebrahim in Tokyo, marking the first face-to-face meeting between the two sides since the beginning of peace talks in 1997. Exploratory negotiations were held in Kuala Lumpur, leading to formal talks and finally the “framework agreement” reached in October.

“This conflict has been going on through the second half of the 20th century, said Hank Hendrickson, executive director of the recently formed US-Philippines Society (see sidebar). “The issue hasn’t really been a question of a separate state but degrees of autonomy. This Kuala Lumpur agreement is a new and hopeful effort to establish autonomy in the region.”

The society’s president, John F. Maisto, said the credibility of the Aquino government is what’s really changed.

“When you’re dealing with a government that makes under-the-table deals based on politics — as you had in the Philippines throughout the 20th century — it gets very messy. So this is a welcome turn of events,” he told The Diplomat. “It’s certainly a step in the right direction, and it’s going to depend upon evidence of good faith on both sides as they move this process along.”

Joshua Kurlantzick, a fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, cites four specific reasons to believe that this time, the peace is for real.

“For one, the Philippine armed forces increasingly realize that they have other threats to focus on, namely China - a threat for which they are woefully unprepared, as reflected by the horrendous state of the Philippine Navy, which has been exposed in the current crisis over the South China Sea,” said Kurlantzick, writing Oct. 9 on the deal.

“Secondly, the agreement offers people in the south more than previous negotiations, promising them a potential Muslim autonomous region in the south that would be better governed, and less likely to descend into a mafia state than previous efforts at autonomy,” he said.

“Third, President Aquino seems to enjoy more genuine trust from rebel leaders, and people in the south, than previous presidents dating back to Joseph Estrada,” added Kurlantzick. “Finally, this proposed peace deal, by creating the possibility for real economic development, offers the chance to reduce inequality in the south, and reduce the anger among poorer Muslim groups in the south against the generally wealthier Christian minority in Mindanao.”

The ambassador agrees that Aquino’s popularity was crucial to getting the job done.